Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of the interdependence between the content of the creator and the physical property owned by others. It is equivalent to theft, coercion and censorship.

What if I had a thumb drive with a million bitcoin on it? I might be very attached to it.

Why don't you just debate what you will do with your property and leave me to debate what I'll do with mine.

There's a difference between conscious sentience in progress, and one that has been halted or damaged due to injury, otherwise it would be an arbritrary definition that some ignorant people, or newborns, could fall into and then be "aborted".

Let life be what it will be. Intervene to help, not to harm.

Version A of ownership cannot exist without Version B of ownership. They are intertwined, which is why property and person are nearly one and the same in some contexts.

"In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will."
--Alexander Hamilton

If you must cause harm to stop harm you have either broken even (self-defense). However, in contradistinction to that, if you have initiated it, you have tipped the scales.

I don't see the castration argument as much different. You will, no doubt, save lives. Castration is not life threatening, it is a somewhat temporary inconvenience. If what you are after is "saving" lives, it will do exactly that. There will be fewer deaths by STD's and incidentals (tainted blood supplies, abortions, unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation).

The rebuttal has perfectly valid points given the same logical axioms as regulation.

For the same reason why I waste my time on yours.

So answer Rassah's question regarding male castration. Seems he makes a very valid point.

The problem is the mess the politician left behind (the laws he enacted). If by getting rid of the politician, can we also get rid of the destructive forces he left in his wake?

Voting a politician out of office (for unlawful conduct) is hardly punishment for the expansive damage they do. Barely a slap on the wrist if you ask me.

In point of fact, in real criminal cases we go after all of the accomplices, conspirators and accessories to criminal behavior. Why do we make exceptions for legislators, executives and adjudicators when the laws they uphold achieve similar ends?

For some controversial topics, sometimes it's easier to work your way backwards.

Given that we're assuming no incidental or intentional aggression, I ask the following:

Should you kill a 50 year old? No.
Should you kill a 10 year old? No.
Should you kill a 1 year old? No.
Should you kill a newborn? No.

Should you kill the unborn? This is where people seem to think there is a distinction. I have a difficult time seeing how anybody can get to 50 if they can't get past the womb. Everybody knows that the fetus is extremely dependent on the mother for it's survival (and no, you know it's not the same as a cancerous tumor).

The same could be said for somebody who has invited me into their house and then changed their mind. You ask me to leave and show me the door, fine. Let's now suppose I sustain an injury (i.e. paralyzed, broken neck) and any near future or momentary intervention could result in my death (I need specialized medical assistance). If I'm incapable of leaving, can you justify killing me?

Or perhaps another scenario: I'm originally invited in your house, or I was unceremoniously dumped in your house while unconscious by a criminal, and you ask me to leave, but the only way out is thru the 2nd story window. I refuse to leave due to safety issues, or I'm unaware (momentarily unconscious). Can you justify throwing me out the window?

And perhaps last, but certainly not least, let's suppose I'm in your house and I'm on life support, but to leave I must abandon my life support to be evicted. Can you evict, if by doing so, it results in my death?

To wit, should my unintentional occupancy, now turned trespass, rise to the level of lethal force due to circumstantial physical duress beyond my control?

Even though I don't think voting represents a real contractual obligation, I might be interested in the following alternative, if it were available:

If it could be proven that (in the US) a politician were violating his oath of office, or that any piece of legislation resulted in directly or indirectly plundering from the person who voted in his representative, that he/she be tried in a court of law for said theft (assuming he supported said legislation).

Anyone should be able to bring suit against the alleged representative/politician (probably a class action). It wouldn't require an impeachment (that's like asking the mafia to police themselves). The executors of the law could also be brought (they're accomplices too). Be that the case, then I might entertain the idea.

Of course, the vote would have to be kept track of. A written record of who you voted for would be available in the public domain and any verbal promises could be construed as contractual in nature. The case should be tried like any other. What was the motive? Where is the evidence? Who are the co-conspirators? How was the crime accomplished? Follow the money trail.

That ought to cut down on a lot of corruption real quick.

I can't argue with that one. A regulation with a built-in answer. Can't beat that. Sign me up.

Is gravity the best way to keep me from floating off into space? I don't know. I can't know. I haven't been given any other option to find out.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't answer your question. I can't answer the question. It's like asking if you still enjoy beating your wife. It's a loaded question.

I believe in magic...

The more principled way takes more effort and introspection. Tyranny and slavery requires neither.

It's relevant because it calls into question regulatory nuances. The collar represents regulation. I may not have phrased it that way but that's what it implies.

The government could just as easily lop our pointer fingers off because it's the finger most used to pull the trigger on a gun (hence, trigger finger). By doing so, there is a greater likelihood there will be less violent gun crimes. Funny thing is, gun manufacturers and criminals will find another way around given enough persistence.

The examples are numerous.

I like that, "one man's regulation is another man's monopoly".

It ought to give pause to all of those politicians out there who think they're doing society a favor, when in fact the laws they write, do nothing more than accrue power to the (s)elect few.

If I can make a surveilance camera small enough to fit in a collar, wirelessly transmit the images to a government enforcement facility, electrify it if necessary so as to mollify aggression, and that would reduce crime, would you wear it?

The fire-suppression provider can withdraw all of his services and demand that any closely connected buildings agree to an assurance contract before further service is rendered. If there aren't enough contributors to satisfy his contract, nobody gets service. Of course, some will leave, others will risk it. Or maybe, just maybe, the owner of the building might chip in because he wants to keep his units rented/leased and add that cost to his bottom line or pass it on to his clientele. The free market will prevail eventually even when the aforementioned objects are already in play. Have a little faith.

Several potential solutions were proffered. You flatly turned them away as not useful because they don't suit your regulatory style. Nobody will ever know if they can't try. Monopolizing forces thru government never give the free market sufficient time nor space to work things out. They always intercede, and when they do, they make waves that easily capsize other opportunities from presenting themselves.

All monopolies of force are bad -every last one- without exception.

Laziness, fear, reprisal, frustration, apathy. Those may sound like irrational reasons for rational thinking persons, but most people despite their ability to discern other topics with alacrity, just don't understand, nor care for, the basic concepts of human law. They spend their time scurrying about just trying to keep from being robbed by their "leaders"; and in an attempt to stem that tide, vote in a fresh group of highwaymen to "represent" them, believing it will actually stop the plunder, when in reality it just feeds the voracious appetite of that self-same beast that consumed them before. Different wolf, same bite.